Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
Sep 10, 2010 4:00am EDT
tosses the lawsuit that challenges the company that flew its victims. jonathan turley joins me. >>> steven hawking's argument. no god is needed to create a universe. just gravity and quantum theory. our guest, his co-author and david letterman and i play for a possible 2012 presidential candidate. >> it could be another bush. we haven't had enough of them. >> that's his campaign slogan. >> i'll reveal what it is so somebody called jeb up and tell him to watch. all of the news and commentary now on "countdown." >>> good evening from new york. this just in from kerry sanders in florida. we're a little back to square one he now quotes pastor terry jones of the dove church in that state. i'm praying, he tells sanders, to decide what to do next. two days before the ninth anniversary of 9/11, 48 hours before the planned burning of korans by a small florida church and our fifth story on the "countdown" tonight. the koran burning has been suspended. originally the pastor of the church said the burning was canceled. the ugly ramifications, it is too late to call back no matter what happ
Sep 29, 2010 10:00pm EDT
standard? let's bring in senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin and jonathan turley. jeff, first, i want to give you an opportunity to respond to what the attorney general said, either the personal part or about his legal argument. >> i'm sorry he's not a fan, but the point is the united states supreme court has dealt with this issue in many different ways over many years. the public employee, the free speech rights of public employees is a longstanding subject before the supreme court. the most recent case, 2006, involves a deputy district attorney in los angeles who was fired and the supreme court upheld his firing. it's not an identical case but if you look at the range of these cases, clearly the direction the court is moving is towards less and less free speech protection for stuff that is a heck of a lot less offensive than the stuff -- >> let me challenge you on that a little bit because i'm certainly not a lawyer, but what i've just read from the supreme court is if the public official is talking about something of public concern, which i guess you could argue, you know, this guy's
Sep 24, 2010 9:00pm EDT
washington university law professor jonathan turley who blogs at jonath how important do you think this ruling is in term of the immediate future of the don't ask, don't tell policy? >> you know, rachel, the witt standard is enormously important and may be more important than the real blockbuster decision a few weeks ago finding don't ask, don't tell to be just fundamentally unconstitutional. the reason is that that earlier decision you could find court of appeals judges who are uncomfortable with just saying that it cannot be done as a constitutional question. but with the witt standard, it would effectively kill this policy under the weight of a standard that quite reasonably says look at the individual. if you're going to say this individual is a threat to unit cohesion, prove it. and most fascinating about this case and judge leighton is that after he was reversed, after he ruled against her, he had a two-week bench trial. and in those two weeks he found what he clearly thought was profound evidence that not only was this not a danger to unit cohesion, bu
Sep 30, 2010 2:00am EDT
-- something he's compelled to do by the law. >> interesting discussion. jeff toobin, jonathan turley, appreciate your expertise. thank you very much. let us know what you think, the live chat up and running right now. >>> up next tonight we put a racy attack ad to the test. is the re-enactment of a senator's alleged visit to a prostitute fact or fiction? is it fair? >>> and another accuser speaking out saying bishop eddie long abused him. >> once the right time to expose everything it's going to happen, and i just pray, i just want people to know to keep praying. c s. t adwiwiout food al t >>> we've been examining some of the political ads running this campaign season. the other night you might remember we pointed out what was incorrect and misleading one by a florida democratic congressman, one by a republican congressman from north carolina. tonight a whole new kind of attack ad. this one is by charlie melancon, it's against david vitter and it actually includes a re-enactment of an alleged visit with a prostitute. tom foreman has been looking at it perhaps in a dark room somewhere and joins u
Sep 25, 2010 3:00pm EDT
its state privileges. the cleric is a u.s. citizen. joining us now by phone is jonathan turley, an expert on constitutional law at george washington university. and he also has experience as lead council in a state secrets case. all right, professor, i'm glad you could be with us. does this case merit a state secret privilege? >> well, i have to say, i find it questionable. because the indication really raises a very simple and threshold issue, and that is, can the president of the united states on his own authority simply say, i'm going to kill this citizen? now, obviously the administration has some very good reasons to want to capture him. but to do a targeted assassination of a citizen without any due process raises obvious concerns. but really before we get to that, the problem with the privilege assertion is that this question can be answered without access to most of that information. i mean, presents a constitutional question, not a -- really a national security question in terms of the details of what's happening in yemen or any other country. >> what do you mean? how woul
Sep 13, 2010 8:00pm EDT
trial committee, good morning. my name is jonathan turley and i have the honor of representing united states district court judge g. thomas poteous and joining me with daniel schwartz, keith arzata, john walsh, pj, dan o'connor from the law firm of brian cave. senators, if the parties agree on one thing, it is this. by any measure this is a historic moment. it's not simply because the constitutional proceeding has only occurred 14 times in our history. it's a proceeding that the framers crafted with the likes of james madison to guide your actions today, this week, and in this case. in the history of this republic, in over two centuries, there's only been seven federal judges of thousands that have been removed under this standard. now, for past senators and frankly current senators it would be an easy thing to simply convict a judge and yield to the passions of controversy. yet, this is an occasion where the senate has given a specific duty to adjudicate, not just legislate or deliberate. impeachments are not about one judge. they're about all judges. and the constitutional guarantee
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)